John Vogel's Thinking Outside The Housing Bubble

The mortgage crisis of 2007 marked catastrophe for millions of homeowners who suffered from foreclosure and short sales. Most of the problems involving the foreclosing of families’ homes could boil down to risky borrowing and lending. Lenders were pushed to ensure families would be eligible for a loan, when in previous years the same families would have been deemed too high-risk to obtain any kind of loan. With the increase in high-risk families obtaining loans, there was a huge increase in home buyers and subsequently a rapid increase in home prices. As a result, prices peaked and then began falling just as fast as they rose. Soon after families began to default on their mortgages forcing them either into foreclosure or short sales. Who was to blame for the risky lending and borrowing that caused the mortgage meltdown? Many might blame the company Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but in reality the entire system of buying and selling and free market failed home owners and the housing economy.

During the early 2000 's, the United States housing market experienced growth at an unprecedented rate, leading to historical highs in home ownership. This surge in home buying was the result of multiple illusory financial circumstances which reduced the apparent risk of both lending and receiving loans. However, in 2007, when the upward trend in home values could no longer continue and began to reverse itself, homeowners found themselves owing more than the value of their properties, a trend which lent itself to increased defaults and foreclosures, further reducing the value of homes in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. The 2008 crash of the near-$7-billion housing industry dragged down the entire U.S. economy, and by extension, the global economy, with it, therefore having a large part in triggering the global recession of 2008-2012.

In the Book, Pop, Why bubbles are Great for the Economy by Daniel Gross, there is an explanation of why people today do not understand the agitations and turmoil that create barriers to improving the economy. The ideas that economist hope to see in the world, are very farfetched from actuality. This world that they think of is a dream that is practically perfect in the way of allocating resources and making sure everything is done in the best possible way. However, people cannot all see the bigger picture and have faith that it will be what is good for the economy. Instead, our economy is centered over a few main points which are self-indulgence, entrepreneurship, and sometimes this can cause mayhem within the economy. Daniel explains how Americans handle our economy growing and new things coming to the public’s eye as if losing their marbles and everything crumbles from there. The book discusses different time periods that bubbles got out of hand and because of that people were hurt financially. People got hurt because the prices of different markets rose when the economy was not ready for it to raise. The different industries that the book exhibits are telegraphs, railroads, the internet, real estate, and alternative energy.

Statistically, one out of seven families live in severe physical deficient housing. In fact, the housing and stock market revealed in July of 2009 that the Great Recession further widened the gap and income disparity between the average, hard-working Americans and the top 1% of wealthy Americans. Edward N. Wolff suggests that the average American produced a massive 36.1% drop in overall marketable assets while the top 1% of wealthy Americans only lost 11.1%. This income gap disparity ensures that ever-increasing need for affordable housing as the economic crisis worsens.

In the lead up to the current recession, when the real estate market began to fall, there were so many investors shorting stocks and securitized mortgage packages that were already falling, that the market simply fell further. There were no buyers at the bottom, and the professional investors made millions off of the losses of others. Beyond this, there was no real federal regulation for securitized mortgages, since there was no real way to gauge the mathematical risk of any given package. This allowed the investors to take advantage of the system and to short loans on real people’s homes. Once these securities were worthless, many of the homebuyer’s defaulted on their mortgages and were left penniless. No matter from which angle this crisis is looked at, the blame rests squarely with the managers who began the entire cycle, the ones who pursued the securitization of mortgages. Their incompetence not only led to the losses of Americans who have never invested in the stock market, but to losses for their shareholders.

On June 27, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act, with the goal to improve the housing standards and conditions, as well as provide a mutual mortgage insurance system. It came at a time when at least half of the nation’s home mortgages were in default, millions of people were losing their homes, and the construction industry was halted. This law in turn created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA set standards for construction and underwriting, and it provided mortgage issuers, such as banks and private lenders, a federal guarantee of repayment. The purpose of this was to revive mortgage lending for house construction, home improvement projects, and home purchases. Not only did the FHA’s program

Over the last half century, our government has been increasing in size. Hamilton might say this is good in terms of centralized government but he also noted that humans are weak and tempted, especially those who are motivated by their own self-interest. The enormous size of government makes opportunities for corruption. By reducing the size of our government, we are cutting spending and overall reducing our national debt issues. One of the issues that our government had created was the housing bubble. Between 2002-2007, the government created new programs under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that guaranteed lenders their money back. This was an ultimate opportunity for bankers to take greater risks than ever before. They can keep their profits if it goes according to plan. But if not, the government would step in and bail them out. The current National Debt level is $18T and rising. Year after year, our government has been spending more than what we can afford. Abide by the Constitution of the United States, we can help reduce the overall size of the government. Smaller and smarter government means lower taxes thus creating an environment for small businesses to develop and

History helped to recognize the parallels between these eras and learn from them. The crisis of 2008 was not nearly as bad as the Great Depression, but like the Depression consumers lost trust in the market and were afraid to invest in the economy. The Housing Crash catastrophe, like the Great Depression contributed to the failure of banking institutions and led to high unemployment rates. Unlike the Great Depression, the crisis of 2008 was supported by more than a dozen economic stimulus packages provided by the federal government to jumpstart the economy. The federal government stepped in to bailout the banking institutions to avoid another Great Depression. It is important to look back on the history of these two national devastations and learn from their mistakes so we can be better prepared for future economic downfalls in the

Everyone has heard the news on the current deteriorating state of the economy, the severe credit crisis and the declining housing market. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, other news outlets and even the President remind us of our pain daily. The people's fears and perception have now become reality. Home foreclosures are at an all time high even in my neighborhood in Jersey City with many more foreclosures likely to come. The unemployment rate in Hudson County, New Jersey is growing daily and is the highest it has been in many years. Housing resale values are at all time lows with no end in sight. Even the banks are going bankrupt as are many Americans who no longer qualify for credit.Because of the recent credit crisis, many people don't qualify for a new loan to buy a house right now, despite the incredibly low housing prices.

Debt accumulation for middle-class and lower-class households rose significantly in the decades prior to the crisis. (Within the financial sector, debt rose from “22 percent of GDP in 1981 to 117 percent in 2008). As households spent more and saved less, they began relying heavily on loans and speculation to sustain their spending. The housing market in the late 1990s and early 2000s became the primary focus of spending--with banks giving out loans for houses far beyond the financial means of the one’s acquiring them. As J. D. Wisman asserted in Wage Stagnation, Rising Inequality, and the Financial Crisis, “the housing market was greatly stimulated by very low interest rates

Now these financial markets have allowed many to become successful and live the “American Dream,” but have also caused many to suffer and lose everything. Back in 2007, the United States’ economy experienced a large financial crisis that almost paralleled the financial crisis during the Great Depression. Large financial institutions suffered a great deal and the stock market plummeted worldwide. The housing market took a huge hit as well, causing many foreclosures and evictions. This crisis stemmed from a major default in the subprime mortgage market. The bad credit records should have given some forewarning to the looming crisis, but the financial innovation for these mortgages gave investors a chance to succeed in the market. So as a large volume of cash flowed into the United States, the subprime mortgage market took off and became a trillion dollar market by 2007 (Mishkin 208). With prices rising in the housing market, subprime borrowers could simply refinance their houses by taking out even larger loans as homes appreciated in value. These borrowers were also unlikely to default because the houses could be sold off to pay back the loan. This benefited investors since the securities backed by cash flows from subprime mortgages had high returns. And this continued growth of the subprime mortgage market further increased the demand for houses and continued to fuel the increase in housing prices.

In 2002, several years before the peak of the housing boom, George Bush proudly proclaimed that owning a home was the American Dream. Construction workers at the time were all geared up and prepared for the wave of residential living that was about to hit. Simultaneously banks were hesitant when handing out mortgages to new and eager homeowners. Bush’s dream was a vision that involved opportunity and an up and rising trend of homeownership where he truly believed that this would be the case, and so did everybody else. About a decade later, that dream had changed drastically. Americans began abandoning their white-picket fences and two car garages for a downtown city view and a shorter walk to work. The population shift that is taking place

Between 2007 and 2008, the impending mortgage crisis met its peak, and subsequent “burst”. In simple terms, over the years leading up to the housing bubble, banks loaned out large amounts of money to the people in an effort to stimulate the economy. Those who originally did not qualify for such large loans, now did. However, these subprime borrowers (borrowers with a poor credit history) often could not actually afford their payments, leading them to file for bankruptcy, and pushing the country closer toward the recession and the collapse of the housing market. The rise in subprime mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures meant a severe decline in securities. As the recession escalated, the wellbeing of financial institutions and citizens alike

During the mid-1990s, the US economy had maintained stable growth, low unemployment, and low inflation; it was the longest undisrupted growth period post- the Vietnam War, the Dot.com Boom, and the stock market crash of 1987. Therefore, many politicians, economists, and consumers were under the assumption that the economy was very stable. But in reality this growth period was a façade because it was built on mortgage-backed securities. Ultimately, since fragility does not change, mortgage-backed securities was one the main catalysts for the 2008 financial crisis, a crisis that is still affecting the country today. Throughout this paper, I hope to inform you about the causes and effects of mortgage-backed serecurties.

Another New York Times tells that financial institutions that are dependent on mortgages, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have not been able to pay back the money they owe to the federal government.2 They are still asking for more money because of the continuing real estate crisis. Instead of simply giving these mortgage giants money to stay afloat, the federal government would be more effective if it were to support them by putting the money directly towards the root of the problem.